## Icc Agreement Or Consistency

If distortions, i.e. cj numbers, are defined in continuous measurements, then a reasonable experimental approach should be either to try to correct the xij measured values for these distortions, or to eliminate the sources of distortion (eliminate). Give the corrected xij value yij. Then, according to Eq (22), the corrected values are given by (28), but this equation shows that the yij corrected values can actually be produced by Model 1, i.e. without bias. The appropriate intra-population correlation coefficient for corrected values must therefore be indicated by Eq (27), i.e. the coefficient estimated by CCI (C.1). Therefore, icc (C,1) can be considered as an estimate of the intraclassical correlation coefficient of the population that would be obtained if the terms Bias could be eliminated or corrected. This statement, which applies to both Model 2 and Model 3, seems a little stronger than saying that CCI (C,1) is a degree of consistency. The simulations described below will clearly show this. In fact, it was proposed by Alexander as early as 1947.[ In the absence of the restriction Eq (21) and therefore without anticorrelation, we can again replace rcij and eij in Eq (19) with a single term “noise” vij, extracted from a normal distribution with type deviation nv.

Thus, Model 3 becomes simple (22), where the cj is now fixed. The ICC absolute match population with Model 3 is therefore similar to Eq (9), i.e. that obtained with Model 2, except that (according to the traditional approach), the variance of Model 2 (see S2 appendix) is replaced by (23), i.e. the variance of fixed bias conditions cj by its average. SISTGH`s absolute compliance with Model 3 is therefore identical (24) Eq (24) to the ICC population known as McGraw and Wong`s “Case 3A, Absolute Agreement” [6]. In Appendix S2, we find THE EMS relationships for Model 3 as (25) Eq Resolve (25) for values 2, 2 and 2 we get variance estimates (26) With Eq (26) in Eq (24), we get exactly the same ICC formula (A.1) as we received with Model 2, i.e. Eq (12). McGraw and Wong also achieved this result [6]. Given that we replaced the “C2” by c2 value during the transition from Model 2 to Model 3 in EMS Eq (25) and the icc Absolute Agreement definition, Eq (24), it is not surprising. In all cases, using the Eq variance estimates (11) in Eq (13) (14), which is the standard formula for estimating ICC consistency, we obtain in the hypothesis of Model 2 [6]. One of the advantages of this formula (and CCI (A,1)) is that it applies, unlike iCC (1), whether there is distortion or not.